Clearly, an individual's right to choose his or her employer isn't something that is in question and not something to be open to scrutiny here.
However, given that this is the second time this has happened in as many months, I am interested in views as to how this reflects on the PUG in particular. Does it not undermine their claimed independence when it seems that joining the user group, (which is there supposedly to be the beady eye of the customer watching over the internal "voice of the customer") is actually now an established route for getting a job at Plus Net towers? It seems to me that it can't inspire any confidence in the group which continues to struggle for credibility, despite being 2 years and 2 days old today.
An alternative viewpoint is that it's a positive thing for Plus Net to be employing people who are closer to customers. However, it all feels a bit too close for comfort to me.
Given that membership at the top table of PUG remains entirely undemocratic and is maintained through self selection, PUG leaders are entirely unaccountable to plus net customers. (We don't even know who the chariman of PUG is, although we do know that there is one.) If membership were through a ballotted process, one question I would feel justified in asking at the hustings would be whether the candidate member could foresee any circumstances in which he or she might seek to be employed at plus net. It would then avoid these apparent conflict of interest issues arising at any later date.
___________________________________
PLUS NET - The Shaping Of Things To Come
"If you don't like it here it's very simple for you to find another ISP."
....................Neil Armstrong
Head of Marketing, Plus Net plc
15 September 2005
PLUS NET - The Shaping Of Things To Come
"If you don't like it here it's very simple for you to find another ISP."
....................Neil Armstrong
Head of Marketing, Plus Net plc
15 September 2005



Pages in this thread:
Print Thread
channel